bstix

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You shouldn't have pointed it out at all. Now we have to come up with a better punchline.

Like: " Sorry kid, the bank does that"

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Sometimes construction makes for unexpected detours.

(I should probably mention that it's also a dead end road, so no backing out)

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Swinger clubs.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, that part is working really well. I've been using YouTube less and less every time they've worsened the free service. I don't even bother with the revanced loopholes, I'll just don't use YouTube to find stuff. Most of the content is made for monetisation purposes anyway.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, or that I don't understand why. It's just a prime example of the internet going to shit.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Yes it is true. They don't make an impression when I don't see it.

Call me old fashioned, but I have hands. I physically put my phone away because I do not want to watch the screen on my phone when the screen is showing an ad instead of showing what I wanted to see.

Companies are paying Google to show me ads that I don't see.

Coca Cola's brand recognition does not come from YouTube ads. It comes from signs in the real world, visual merchandising in stores and product placement in shows.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

companies that pay for the ads don't care if you think you are immune to propaganda. they want you to watch.

They don't pay for ads just to waste my time. They buy ads to sell products.

Forced advertising does not work on the kind of people who already do everything they can not to watch ads.

if you think you are immune

I'm literally not watching my phone if YouTube or other stream goes into ad mode. I do not see the ad.

The imaginary part is that Google gets paid just as much for showing ads that don't work as they do for showing ads that do work.

Forced advertising is good for Google. It's not good for the users nor the companies who pay Google.

[–] [email protected] 142 points 1 year ago (32 children)

It's a waste of time. People who bother installing Vanced are not likely to click a single god damn ad even if it's forced on them.

So yes, Google can choose to bother some people and get higher statistics on ad views, but the companies paying for the ad will not see one single fucking sale more. This lowers the value of the ad.

They're chasing imaginary revenue.

The value of exposure isn't real either. The phone might play it but I don't fucking watch something that I don't want to watch. I've been online since before online ads were a thing and not once have I bought anything from any online ads.

Just let me opt out of that circus for fuck sake.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Only Satan would design a hole that is smaller than the end of a bent paperclip when the entire purpose of the hole is to put something into it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I was wondering when someone would attempt that.

The free roaming has worked well since Brexit only because nobody dared introduce it again.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, coal and it's biproducts are used in the production of various materials. Unfortunately it all involves burning it. It's just that the burning itself isn't really the purpose of it.

When people talk about not using coal it's mostly about not using it for production of electricity and heat. Steel production also needs to find alternatives.

It's also used in electronics though those tiny amounts can easily be found in coal waste or produced for the purpose, so it's not a reason to keep a coal mine open.

Now the reason why coal is even a topic is that it plays a comically large part of politics too..

Just keep in mind that when certain politicians talk about the loss of jobs, it's fewer than 40000 jobs across the USA. That's a large number, but it's still fewer than there are people born every week. So basically, every week, there are more people getting old enough to apply for jobs than there are coal jobs. All these kids needs jobs too. You won't notice those 40000 coal people lining up in employment queue. At all. They can all find other jobs easily. The unemployment rate is lower than ever. "Nobody wants to work" and "we can't afford to lose 40000 jobs". Make up your mind, please.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I made a typo and used 177 b.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (10 children)

It's unlikely to have ever happened.

2^42 is 25 times the total number of people ever born in all of history.

view more: ‹ prev next ›